Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Tiger on August 28, 2007, 10:22:36 AM
-
It seems this way to me...
If you come in low, fast and straight at an airfield and extend straight out with only minor climb, the Auto-Ack hits me less than if I attempt any evasive manuevers while over the field.
This seems odd to me. Seems like if I were flying straight I'd be easier to hit than if I were to make minor evasive manuevers.
-
Myth
-
Originally posted by hitech
Myth
Pwn
-
Look at it from the AAA point of view. Flying straight and level at speed, you present a small/narrow target to hit. Once you start jinking and such, you expose more surface to view, hence a bigger target.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Pwn
pwn or not, give it a try. Thats how I get the ack runners, but you have to be scraping the floor with your prop. You do get hit occasionally but nothing like what happens if you are up high. Ack seems to be firing short.
Oh, and don't clime till you are out of range
-
Originally posted by 68Boomer
Look at it from the AAA point of view. Flying straight and level at speed, you present a small/narrow target to hit. Once you start jinking and such, you expose more surface to view, hence a bigger target.
That is true, but if you do fly through the field, at some point you have ack on your 12 6 3 9 etc. Just don't fly over a gun
-
Originally posted by hitech
Myth
I feel special, I got a HiTech reply
-
I have no problems racking up killz in the Ostie or FG. But it is a myth.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I have no problems racking up killz in the Ostie or FG. But it is a myth.
He is talking about auto ack. Try it, then respond.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
He is talking about auto ack. Try it, then respond.
pwn ;)
-
Originally posted by Tiger
I feel special, I got a HiTech reply
So did 4,690 other people :D
-
Originally posted by Latrobe
So did 4,690 other people :D
Nope, only 4689 'other' people. I was 4690
-
Dam you math!!!111
-
Originally posted by Tiger
It seems this way to me...
If you come in low, fast and straight at an airfield and extend straight out with only minor climb, the Auto-Ack hits me less
You're right. Strafe ack with canon. Stay low on exit. Fly fast too. After a little extension, loop for 2nd pass.
Repeat as necessary.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
He is talking about auto ack. Try it, then respond.
I know what is "being alluded to" and it is incorrect. Ack hitting you has NO BEARING, regardless of speed, angle, etc.
The creator of this very game disagrees with you two as well.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I know what is "being alluded to" and it is incorrect. Ack hitting you has NO BEARING, regardless of speed, angle, etc.
The creator of this very game disagrees with you two as well.
Did you try it or just agreeing with HT because he is the creator?
-
dontcha feel that by calling hitech 'The Creator' that you are bordering on creating a cult?
-
V'Ger? Where?!
-
Originally posted by dedalos
Did you try it or just agreeing with HT because he is the creator?
Why yer attitude? I've tried it many times as I've been playing since April of 2002. But wait, "I'm not good enough". :rofl
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Why yer attitude? I've tried it many times as I've been playing since April of 2002. But wait, "I'm not good enough". :rofl
:confused:
-
Originally posted by dedalos
HT is the creator
all hail the creator!:o
-
Originally posted by dedalos
:confused:
Why?
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Why?
Because not agreeing with you is not attitude and something Mittens might have told you in the past has nothing to do with me or this argument. This is easily solved any way.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Myth
Yet another entire post without a spelling error.
Originally posted by Latrobe
So did 4,690 other people :D
Not true. You would have to deduct the number of posts where he was the thread starter :)
Originally posted by evenhaim
all hail the creator!:o
Zealot! :)
-
Originally posted by dedalos
He is talking about auto ack. Try it, then respond.
Reads like there is a ton of "attitude" in that post.
As for the ack, I've done both, scream through on the deck, or flop around above the field. Some times you get through clean other times you don't. When its your turn, ack gets ya!
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Why yer attitude? I've tried it many times as I've been playing since April of 2002. But wait, "I'm not good enough". :rofl
Well, I have to agree with Tiger.
I have found when I egress from a base staying super low I have a better chance than when I pull up right away.
I don't think it's really the ack is less accurate, I think it's because when low on the deck, there are less guns that can see you, so there is less chance of a hit.
Tiger, if it works for you, then do it, regardless of what others may say.
-
No idea how auto AA "aims", but obviously if you are scraping your prop you are obscured by buildings from some guns & some angles. It makes sense that you're are harder to hit and the buildings may also absorb some of the hits (unless it's smart enough to not shoot it's own structures).
Speed seems to help me get through more than any other factor. Since most of the rounds just barely miss, it seems like "jinking" has about the same odds of putting me in harms way (turning into one of the zillion near misses wizzing by) as it does out of harms way.
Riding on kills in a perk ride through ack flips the auto acks "laser-guided" mode switch to "on" so don't even bother :D
-
Originally posted by Gulp
No idea how auto AA "aims", ....:D
HT has explained how acks work in the past, and I think he discussed it at the last convention...which I got to hear thanks to an attendee's podcast. So here's the scoop.
Ack does NOT aim. HT said that he started with "aiming" programming, and worked on variations of it for years. (Newer players may not realize that HT has been programming online air sims for more than a decade.) The algorhytms for aiming either resulted in unreasonable laser guided accuracy, or gunners so stupid that they could be ignored.
Instead, we have an "area probability" system. Your likelihood of getting hit by an individual shot is considered statistically, not tracked like an aimed shot. There are three factors that priamrily affect your chance of getting hit:
RANGE from the firing gun;
SPEED that you are travelling; and
G-FORCES you are experiencing.
You are more likely to get hit when you are close, slow, and straight. You are less likely to get hit when you are fast, farther away, and pulling Gs. And that about sums it up.
EDIT:
And about the "myth" and the arguments that followed...your experience is real, but it isnt for the reason you think. You're not "hiding from the ack by being low, because the shot isnt aimed. Instead, a diving firing pass followed by a high speed exit means, well, that you're fast and extending the range. You can maximize your chances by additionatlly pulling some G's right when the next shot is due.
-
Originally posted by The Fugitive
Reads like there is a ton of "attitude" in that post.
:rofl You are kidding right? How about these?
PWN
I have no problems racking up killz in the Ostie or FG. But it is a myth.
The creator of this very game disagrees with you two as well.
How do you explain his first response to someone asking a simple question?
:rofl
-
Originally posted by The Fugitive
Reads like there is a ton of "attitude" in that post.
When its your turn, ack gets ya!
I guess my question is when is it my turn that the ack wont get me?
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Yet another entire post without a spelling error.
:)
I'm not sure, Murdr...I think he was trying to say the guess was a "Miss" :lol
-
Originally posted by Saxman
V'Ger? Where?!
ahh what an epic that one was !!
-
actually, I might throw something out there...
(I regularly de-ack fields and rarely get killed/damaged. MAYBE once out of 8 do I take any serious damage)
Have you ever taken a field with nme gv's or supplies on the field, and when the auto ack starts firing it is shooting "short" and seems to take forever to hit/kill/destroy 'em?
Or have you driven up to a field in a GV and the auto ack starts shooting at you and the rounds are landing short?
I would be curious if you flew as close to the ground (as was suggested earlier) if that doesn't make some of the ack "miss" by landing short.
Might bear some lookin' into.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
dontcha feel that by calling hitech 'The Creator' that you are bordering on creating a cult?
Thats just silly!
If it were a cult we would give the creator our money, loose touch with friends and family not in the cult, preach to those not in the cult in an effort to get them to join, hang out in airports....oh crap!:noid
-
I don't have an "attitude", never have, never will. But trying to argue the point with HT himself, and disregarding it is foolish.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I don't have an "attitude", never have, never will. But trying to argue the point with HT himself, and disregarding it is foolish.
I was not arguing with HT. I really don't care about anything he a has to say and I am sure he does not care about what I have to say. I was talking to you. I very nicely asked you to try it. Thats all, sorry if you saw it as attitude. I tried it last night. I was going to film it but the game crashes when you do that. In any case, I flew up and down the runway 4 times before I got a PW. I got pinged 1 time on every pass with no other damage.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
I was not arguing with HT. I really don't care about anything he a has to say and I am sure he does not care about what I have to say. I was talking to you. I very nicely asked you to try it. Thats all, sorry if you saw it as attitude. I tried it last night. I was going to film it but the game crashes when you do that. In any case, I flew up and down the runway 4 times before I got a PW. I got pinged 1 time on every pass with no other damage.
I've tried it many times, but really never saw any "consistency". I've tried numerous speeds, angles, etc. It seems that around 50% of the time, I'm ending up in the tower.
<> Ded, that is why I hate the internet, you lose "interpretation".
-
Originally posted by FBplmmr
Thats just silly!
If it were a cult we would give the creator our money, loose touch with friends and family not in the cult, preach to those not in the cult in an effort to get them to join, hang out in airports....oh crap!:noid
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Yet another entire post without a spelling error.
:)
(http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q96/Shuff_photos/AddEmoticons0423.gif)
-
Originally posted by Simaril
HT has explained how acks work in the past, and I think he discussed it at the last convention...which I got to hear thanks to an attendee's podcast. So here's the scoop.
Ack does NOT aim. HT said that he started with "aiming" programming, and worked on variations of it for years. (Newer players may not realize that HT has been programming online air sims for more than a decade.) The algorhytms for aiming either resulted in unreasonable laser guided accuracy, or gunners so stupid that they could be ignored.
Instead, we have an "area probability" system. Your likelihood of getting hit by an individual shot is considered statistically, not tracked like an aimed shot. There are three factors that priamrily affect your chance of getting hit:
RANGE from the firing gun;
SPEED that you are travelling; and
G-FORCES you are experiencing.
You are more likely to get hit when you are close, slow, and straight. You are less likely to get hit when you are fast, farther away, and pulling Gs. And that about sums it up.
Sooo we are getting shot by luck.. Or the lack of luck... LOL Guess it depends what side of the ACK your on :)
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
dontcha feel that by calling hitech 'The Creator' that you are bordering on creating a cult?
Well, ultimately, I kinda look at it like we're all hamsters in 'The Creator's Habitrail.
That's pretty much what it boils down to.
Shamroc
-
Originally posted by lyric1
I guess my question is when is it my turn that the ack wont get me?
Take a number after me please. I'm number 309,292.
:aok
-
Speed, and small (very small) random changes in elevation and direction works the best long term. If your getting hit try to extend out a bit farther, zoom higher on your reverse, dive in, take your 2 or 3 acks per pass, and wiggle slightly on exit.
I always move enough lining up shots on entry I don't worry about wiggling then.
-
Originally posted by dedalos
I was not arguing with HT. I really don't care about anything he a has to say and I am sure he does not care about what I have to say. I was talking to you. I very nicely asked you to try it. Thats all, sorry if you saw it as attitude. I tried it last night. I was going to film it but the game crashes when you do that. In any case, I flew up and down the runway 4 times before I got a PW. I got pinged 1 time on every pass with no other damage.
Originally posted by Simaril
And about the "myth" and the arguments that followed...your experience is real, but it isnt for the reason you think. You're not "hiding from the ack by being low, because the shot isnt aimed. Instead, a diving firing pass followed by a high speed exit means, well, that you're fast and extending the range. You can maximize your chances by additionatlly pulling some G's right when the next shot is due.
Dedalos --
"Trying it" doesnt proove anything, because there are so many possible explanations for what we observe. That's why "I don't care about anything HT has to say" is ummm....intelligence challenged.
HE'S the guy who wrote the Bleeping Code, for crying out loud...how could you NOT care about how he says the ack works? understanding the "why" can be all the difference between success and failure!
-
Originally posted by Tiger
It seems this way to me...
If you come in low, fast and straight at an airfield and extend straight out with only minor climb, the Auto-Ack hits me less than if I attempt any evasive manuevers while over the field.
This seems odd to me. Seems like if I were flying straight I'd be easier to hit than if I were to make minor evasive manuevers.
Ingress and egress routes and altitude would help limit the number of rounds that could be put on target, It’s line of sight, so if they can’t see you, they can’t hit you. If there are enough objects such hangers, tower, hills, trees, or valleys to use for cover the ack can’t hit you. because you are exposed for a shoter period of time.
I think that's what Tiger is alluding to and in that respect it would be fact not myth.
-
SkyRock<---owns ack!
-
Originally posted by Traveler
Ingress and egress routes and altitude would help limit the number of rounds that could be put on target, It’s line of sight, so if they can’t see you, they can’t hit you. If there are enough objects such hangers, tower, hills, trees, or valleys to use for cover the ack can’t hit you. because you are exposed for a shoter period of time.
I think that's what Tiger is alluding to and in that respect it would be fact not myth.
That is NOT correct, not at all. Base ack is NOT software aimed ack, its determined by area probablity...according to the guy who wrote the code.
In other words, if you're in the area, you have a defined probabilty of gettng hit -- based on your speed, your range from the firing gun, and the number of G's you're pulling. If you've been here even a short time, you must have seen threads complaining about ack hitting guys on the far side of a hill, and this explains why it happened. (I suspect extra code was written for longer ranged puffy ack that checks for landscape obstructions, because the issue doesn't come up much anymore.)
If you assume you know what's happening, you may end up frustrated when it "doesn't work well." On the other hand, if you think about what the guy who WROTE THE CODE says happens, you might find ways to make your outcomes even better than what they are now.
I'm just amazed that HT himself has said Tiger's explanation is false (here), and thoroughly explained the ack system (elsewhere) -- but people still argue that their idea is right, and ignore the guy who wrote designed the game, who set up the rules.
:huh :huh :huh
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
SkyRock<---owns ack!
You must be one of the wealthiest individuals on the planet with all that you own. Kidding of course.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
That is NOT correct, not at all. Base ack is NOT software aimed ack, its determined by area probablity...according to the guy who wrote the code.
In other words, if you're in the area, you have a defined probabilty of gettng hit -- based on your speed, your range from the firing gun, and the number of G's you're pulling. If you've been here even a short time, you must have seen threads complaining about ack hitting guys on the far side of a hill, and this explains why it happened. (I suspect extra code was written for longer ranged puffy ack that checks for landscape obstructions, because the issue doesn't come up much anymore.)
If you assume you know what's happening, you may end up frustrated when it "doesn't work well." On the other hand, if you think about what the guy who WROTE THE CODE says happens, you might find ways to make your outcomes even better than what they are now.
I'm just amazed that HT himself has said Tiger's explanation is false (here), and thoroughly explained the ack system (elsewhere) -- but people still argue that their idea is right, and ignore the guy who wrote designed the game, who set up the rules.
:huh :huh :huh
Let me get this right, your saying, that all the time, I've been flying inverted at 100ft at speeds of 300mph or greater, weaving in and out of hangers, always in a figure 8 around the base (never in an oval). Making sure this is done only in the first 15 or last 15 minutes of an hour, and never while it is Dusk in the game, while eating crackers and whistling the Battle Hymn of the Republic, doesn't having any effect on my chances of getting hit by AAA? And you expect me to believe that just because the guy who wrote the code said so.
Yeah right. Who do you think your dealing with here Bozo the clown, I don't believe it for a minute.
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Originally posted by Simaril
That is NOT correct, not at all. Base ack is NOT software aimed ack, its determined by area probablity...according to the guy who wrote the code.
In other words, if you're in the area, you have a defined probabilty of gettng hit -- based on your speed, your range from the firing gun, and the number of G's you're pulling. If you've been here even a short time, you must have seen threads complaining about ack hitting guys on the far side of a hill, and this explains why it happened. (I suspect extra code was written for longer ranged puffy ack that checks for landscape obstructions, because the issue doesn't come up much anymore.)
If you assume you know what's happening, you may end up frustrated when it "doesn't work well." On the other hand, if you think about what the guy who WROTE THE CODE says happens, you might find ways to make your outcomes even better than what they are now.
I'm just amazed that HT himself has said Tiger's explanation is false (here), and thoroughly explained the ack system (elsewhere) -- but people still argue that their idea is right, and ignore the guy who wrote designed the game, who set up the rules.
:huh :huh :huh
Of course it's software aimed. it's a computer program. It’s all software. Yes, it's an "area probability" and that’s my point. If the auto ack can’t see you, it can’t hit you anything else is a game bug. It’s line of sight. If a hanger is between you and the auto ack. That gun will not hit you.
By selecting routes into and out of a target that provide cover and using that cover, you reduce the amount of time that you are exposed to the “area of probability”
Rounds fired from the auto ack at an airfield, do not go thought objects,
-
Sim,
you need to understand the difference between what something was supposed or meant to do, and what it does. I can guarantee you that the users of my software know better than me what it does after the have been using it for a few months. Imagine using something for 5 years. In any case, there is really no point of arguing this. Try it or dont, I dont care. Myth or no myth, it is what I do when I chase people through the ack and I always come out fine. Why? I don't really care. i just posted my observations and i think after 5 years in this game I kind of understand a few things about it.
It takes a few minutes to give it a try. if it does not work for you thats fine. If it does, thats fine too.
-
Originally posted by Traveler
Of course it's software aimed. it's a computer program. It’s all software. Yes, it's an "area probability" and that’s my point. If the auto ack can’t see you, it can’t hit you anything else is a game bug. It’s line of sight. If a hanger is between you and the auto ack. That gun will not hit you.
By selecting routes into and out of a target that provide cover and using that cover, you reduce the amount of time that you are exposed to the “area of probability”
Rounds fired from the auto ack at an airfield, do not go thought objects,
Not to be nit picky, but aiming, really isn't the same as "area probability" Yes they are both software, but the "way" it's done is completely different.
Point is "area probability", "May" or "May Not" take into account line of sight (Where "aiming" most certainly should, or at least the term would imply it did). If "area probability" does take into account line of sight, then it appears you are correct. However, nothing in the term "Area Probability" necessarily lends itself to that conclusion. (it could mean, if you are in the area, this is the chance you will be hit, regardless of where in the area you are) So if it does not take into account "line of sight" then it appears you would be wrong.
Best regards,
--Tachus
-
Originally posted by dedalos
pwn or not, give it a try. Thats how I get the ack runners, but you have to be scraping the floor with your prop. You do get hit occasionally but nothing like what happens if you are up high. Ack seems to be firing short.
Oh, and don't clime till you are out of range
i've watched ack runners try to lure squaddies into their ack, from my bombsite......so i simply remove the ack......it's really easy on small and medium fields......harder on large fields, but it can be done. it's very funny to watch the guy run for cover of the ack, and nothing happens.....except that he starts to lose important parts of his airplane:D :rofl
-
Dedalus --
Not meaning to argue with your experience, just talking about the REASON you see what you see. Low Alt High Speed would significantly reduce hit likelihood regardless of whether its because of line of sight aiming, or area probability. Keep in mind that there is a HUGE logical difference between data you observe, and theories to explain the data. Wrong theory doesn't mean wrong data, after all.
I understand what you're saying about the effects of software being sometimes unpredictable. But, doesn't it make sense that IF the software had NO aiming algorithm, but only a probability modified by variables, that aiming wouldn't matter? And even if your "aimers can't see" explanation were wrong, that wouldn't change the effectiveness of your tactic, right? It works regardless of why it works...which I think is the core of what you're saying.
At the same time, HT has outright said that he couldn't make aiming based systems work while maintaining the right degree of effectiveness in game. He said point blank that the variables he used were range, speed, and G forces. I've never read him saying that line of sight was a factor, in the convention discussion or in the Readme that comes with each update. It wouldn't shock me if that was added, but as far as I know that has not been documented.
And for the arguers in the thread....
Even with the line of sight question theoretically still open, I don't get how some of you folks can be so dead on certain that your explanation for the observed data is right, when the guy who wrote the code says there's a different explanation....Do you really think he's lying to you?
-
Originally posted by Simaril
At the same time, HT has outright said that he couldn't make aiming based systems work while maintaining the right degree of effectiveness in game. He said point blank that the variables he used were range, speed, and G forces. I've never read him saying that line of sight was a factor, in the convention discussion or in the Readme that comes with each update. It wouldn't shock me if that was added, but as far as I know that has not been documented.
That applies to puffy ack. Auto ack is subject to the physical restrictions to line of sight, auto ack is not, and they work differently. I read the starting post, and much of the subsequent discussion as referring to the 20mm auto ack.
With that being the case I agree that an NOE egress can limit the number of guns able to fire on you, and better your chances for a clean egress. What a low ingress and egress does is limit the amount of time you're exposed to the most guns. That betters your odds by being exposed to less guns, but I believe the myth part would be that it in any way affects the accuracy of the auto-ack.
Edit: I re-read the quote, and noticed I misinterpereted what you had said about line of sight. My bad, no harm no fowl.
-
Sorry but I disagree.
You've never seen ack shooting at a tank with rounds hitting a slight ground rise between the ack and the tank?
So obviously the ack doesn't care about the hill. Its going to shoot if there is something that trips its proximity sensor. The tank however can use that hill.
The tank is fine as long as it has that hill for cover. However as soon as it comes out from its shadow its going to get hit.
In some respects your both saying the same thing, just not in the same way.
So, same as the tank, if you get LOW, if your FAST, your odds improve.
Same with jinking as "long as you don't lose speed". So small roll changes with very smooth pitch changes can increase your odds.
By the same token if you have the speed, a high Gee pullout should also work, and maybe work better because of the increased G load. As long as your pulling substantial gee's while in ack range you should have greatly lowered hit %.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Dedalus --
Not meaning to argue with your experience, just talking about the REASON you see what you see. Low Alt High Speed would significantly reduce hit likelihood regardless of whether its because of line of sight aiming, or area probability. Keep in mind that there is a HUGE logical difference between data you observe, and theories to explain the data. Wrong theory doesn't mean wrong data, after all.
I understand what you're saying about the effects of software being sometimes unpredictable. But, doesn't it make sense that IF the software had NO aiming algorithm, but only a probability modified by variables, that aiming wouldn't matter? And even if your "aimers can't see" explanation were wrong, that wouldn't change the effectiveness of your tactic, right? It works regardless of why it works...which I think is the core of what you're saying.
At the same time, HT has outright said that he couldn't make aiming based systems work while maintaining the right degree of effectiveness in game. He said point blank that the variables he used were range, speed, and G forces. I've never read him saying that line of sight was a factor, in the convention discussion or in the Readme that comes with each update. It wouldn't shock me if that was added, but as far as I know that has not been documented.
And for the arguers in the thread....
Even with the line of sight question theoretically still open, I don't get how some of you folks can be so dead on certain that your explanation for the observed data is right, when the guy who wrote the code says there's a different explanation....Do you really think he's lying to you?
How can I make this clear to you? I dont care why it happens and never tried to explain why. I just said that it happens. Sounds like you agree with both me and HT at the same time on your post.
BTW, line of sight is kind of simple. No reason to calculate in the probability algorithm. If the gun cant see you it should not fire. If it does not fire, no questions about line of sight or anything else
-
Sim...
I believe HT was talking about the puffy ack. It does use proximity (and a freakin randomizer...which just loves to piss me off :D). The field auto ack uses different coad and does track targets. It basically tries to predict where the target is going. That is why guys whine about flyin through the ack at 500 mph and dying. Constant changes to your flight path will throw it off. Fly a zero into ack and turn hard and often, you will live a long time (as long as you don't fly directly over an ack).
-
Murdr, NB --
I think you're right. Thanks for the clarification! My info applies to the puffy, and I'm not sure how much it applies to the base ack. I assumed that it was "aimed" the same, but now I'm not sure of that at all.
Simaril
-
Originally posted by Tachus
Not to be nit picky, but aiming, really isn't the same as "area probability" Yes they are both software, but the "way" it's done is completely different.
Point is "area probability", "May" or "May Not" take into account line of sight (Where "aiming" most certainly should, or at least the term would imply it did). If "area probability" does take into account line of sight, then it appears you are correct. However, nothing in the term "Area Probability" necessarily lends itself to that conclusion. (it could mean, if you are in the area, this is the chance you will be hit, regardless of where in the area you are) So if it does not take into account "line of sight" then it appears you would be wrong.
Best regards,
--Tachus
I don't know if line of sight is taken into consideration or not, but my observation and experience has been that I can hide behind objects and field ack will not hit me.
I have flown to an nme base and dive bombed a ground target from altitude, I continue the dive down past the target and hug the ground on my egress. putting as may tall objects between me and the field as I can. When I am able to make attack runs in this fasion I take far fewer hits.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Murdr, NB --
I think you're right. Thanks for the clarification! My info applies to the puffy, and I'm not sure how much it applies to the base ack. I assumed that it was "aimed" the same, but now I'm not sure of that at all.
Simaril
Dedalos --
"Trying it" doesnt proove anything, because there are so many possible explanations for what we observe. That's why "I don't care about anything HT has to say" is ummm....intelligence challenged.
HE'S the guy who wrote the Bleeping Code, for crying out loud...how could you NOT care about how he says the ack works? understanding the "why" can be all the difference between success and failure!
So really what you are saying is that you have no clue about what you were talking about, have not tried it yourself, and yet you came in here to tell me my intelligence was challenged and that trying it does not prove anything. Oh well, why would you be any different :rofl
WTG
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by dedalos
So really what you are saying is that you have no clue about what you were talking about, have not tried it yourself, and yet you came in here to tell me my intelligence was challenged and that trying it does not prove anything. Oh well, why would you be any different :rofl
WTG
:rolleyes:
Nice attitude, sir
Actually, I do have a pretty good idea what I was talking about. Dale HAS said that he was unable to get the "aimed" type algorithm to work without making it either laser deadly, or dumb as a post. I guess I'd point out that aiming software routines AIM GUNS, and that they dont care particularly what caliber they are aiming. Consequently, I suspect that the visible tracers from ground guns are graphic, and not part of the hit calculations. Pretty straightforward logic, it seems to me.
I still don't see why you seem fixated on everyone in the thread "trying" your idea. :rolleyes: No one has said that it doesn't work. NO one, as far as I remember. The entire discussion is about WHY it seems to work.
And then there's this little detail:
Originally posted by HiTech
Myth
At the risk of repeating myself, I don't understand why people can arrogantly claim that their explanation for the observed data is correct even when the guy who wrote the code says it isn't. It seems to me that would mean either that that the arrogant explanation is wrong; or, HT was lying; or, that the arrogant folks believe that the code independently evolved enough transcendent artificial intelligence to rewrite itself. :lol
And even though you quote me saying it, you still don't seem to understand the basic idea here -- that HT wrote the code, and he knows what it does. He says it doesn't do what you say it does. You laugh at me because I believe him.
As you put it, ":rofl ":
-
Originally posted by WMLute
actually, I might throw something out there...
(I regularly de-ack fields and rarely get killed/damaged. MAYBE once out of 8 do I take any serious damage)
Have you ever taken a field with nme gv's or supplies on the field, and when the auto ack starts firing it is shooting "short" and seems to take forever to hit/kill/destroy 'em?
Or have you driven up to a field in a GV and the auto ack starts shooting at you and the rounds are landing short?
I would be curious if you flew as close to the ground (as was suggested earlier) if that doesn't make some of the ack "miss" by landing short.
Might bear some lookin' into.
Yes I've been in many GV's and the autoack fires short, just short enough to spread debris enough that you can't see to fire at it with your main gun or your machine gun and it eventually nails my buttocks to the wall.
All the Best...
Jay
awDoc1
-
Originally posted by NoBaddy
Sim...
I believe HT was talking about the puffy ack. It does use proximity (and a freakin randomizer...which just loves to piss me off :D). The field auto ack uses different coad and does track targets. It basically tries to predict where the target is going. That is why guys whine about flyin through the ack at 500 mph and dying. Constant changes to your flight path will throw it off. Fly a zero into ack and turn hard and often, you will live a long time (as long as you don't fly directly over an ack).
The thing about puffy--ya can be 15k, above the clouds, turn hard 90 degrees, ack explosions don't miss a beat---seems like the one already in the AIR changed direction to match new heading:furious
-
Yes you can do this...I haven't played latest version, so i dunno if things changed, but in my experiences you can egress low and fast and minimize the chance of getting hit....my secret...look for trees close to the field...plan your attack so your egress is in that direction....it seema auto ack can shoot THROUGH hangars but NOT trees......if u come in from 5k+, u line ack up so you can hit three or so on a single pass, of course doin it in the direction of trees..... once you have hit ur acks, u get as low as possible...at literal tree-top level...at hi speed you dissappear from the acks line of sight, and the trees block the fire....egress a safe distance and use ur E to return to 5k plus...repeat....sometimes the ack'll get you when all acks are up, but after the second or third time there are so few that you might be able to clean up the feild w/ no prob...best bet is to have a couple buddies do it w/ you..this divides the fire, as long as you attack simoultaneously...USE THE ARMOR TREES!!!!
-
Originally posted by bj229r
The thing about puffy--ya can be 15k, above the clouds, turn hard 90 degrees, ack explosions don't miss a beat---seems like the one already in the AIR changed direction to match new heading:furious
There in lies HT's problem. Trying to deal with 2 moving objects at that distance. That is why we have what we have for puffy. :)
-
MY 2 cents worth,.......ACK SUX.:D
-
field ack is great modelling on its ai. get close and it gets you.
the puffy ack is the most annoying creation ever made by HT and it should have its range greatly reduced to right above the cv and strat factories.
-
If ya meander above base in zeke it NEVER seems to get you:furious
-
It is really quite simple and can be expressed through the following bit if code:
if (zilla.location >= (2k from ack) )
then
zilla.wing = falls off
else
zilla.pickedBy109
end if
I hope this clears up any questions
-
works for me low and fast buildings all around too block some shots
still cant make more than a few passes tho!
-
its all about the convergance, when your low, only some guns can come to bear on you. at say 4K they all can. (this is my opinion)
-
Originally posted by Murdr
Yet another entire post without a spelling error.
Not true. You would have to deduct the number of posts where he was the thread starter :)
Zealot! :)
Why can't the omnipotant one, the Zero, the intellect, the author and the "creator" of this game put damn spellcheck when posting a message???
Please wise one, answer thy question.:rolleyes: